It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: StallionDuck
So far the most deadliest involved a bomb that killed 44 students and teachers.
originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: howtonhawky
lol I hear you.
But no... The comparison isn't the point of the OP at all. My only point in all of it was, it can happen anywhere with any weapon. The US isn't the source of all killings. That's all.
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: skalla
Us British could get away with it but the rest of them lol .
originally posted by: StallionDuck
People who kill others for the hell of it aren't right in the head and most likely not very intelligent.
originally posted by: StallionDuck
Schools bro. According to the last thing I read, there were only 20 dead in vegas.
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Lets be thankful he didn't use a knife apparently it would have been higher.
originally posted by: testingtesting
Lets be thankful he didn't use a knife apparently it would have been higher.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: testingtesting
Lets be thankful he didn't use a knife apparently it would have been higher.
Or one of your medieval swords.
originally posted by: StallionDuck
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: StallionDuck
If wanted to kill lots of people would you pick a gun or knife?.
As a main weapon, neither. As secondary, depends on if it's close quarters or not so I would say equally both. Though a knife is more effective. It's quiet. It doesn't need ammo. It's more effective still if someone is trying to stop you by physical force.
AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: howtonhawky
lol
They're not as quiet as the movies make you believe.